Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

Not surprisingly, a large percentage of those who voted for him are mostly the elderly who still thought him as the best man for the job, despite many cases of causing controversy over his remarks and/or actions. The other candidates don't put up much with his big stick.

Figuring out the political pulse of young people in Japan will single handedly be the thing I look most forward to doing when I go overseas. I heard anecdotedly that kids just don't give two shits because they can't find work anyway but still....

you give them too much credit for assuming that they can actually get a real aim from the tracers.
or that they stick around long enough to actually change their aim according to it.

as for Iron dome, Its a C-RAM system that fires missiles at the rockets and can protect a very large area compared to most C-RAM systems.
its also capable of computing the trejectory of an incoming rocket, and only engage it if its going to hit an area that the system recognizes as populated.

I thought Hezbollah militants are trained by the Iranian Quds as well as the Libyan commandos.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

I thought Hezbollah militants are trained by the Iranian Quds as well as the Libyan commandos.

They're also not the ones firing missiles at Israelian territory usually (also the first time I hear about Hezbollah having any relation with Libya). Last time they did was during the 2006 Lebanon conflict.
Palestinian militants (Hamas and the other myriad of similar movements) are the ones usually firing the rockets, and their training and competence is abysmal.

They're also not the ones firing missiles at Israelian territory usually (also the first time I hear about Hezbollah having any relation with Libya). Last time they did was during the 2006 Lebanon conflict.
Palestinian militants (Hamas and the other myriad of similar movements) are the ones usually firing the rockets, and their training and competence is abysmal.

It astounded me that the middle class is paying proportionally (to their salary) larger sums of money in taxes than the richest of the rich. I mean, WTF? HOW? Only further shows the corruption bounding our country.

I tried relaying this info my mom told me to my Republican friends, who still refused to think imposing higher taxes (or stopping these nonsensical tax breaks) on the wealthy is a good idea. BLAH.

Statements such as "the rich don't pay their taxes" can be misleading because they often ignore factual evidence to the contrary.

Mr. Warren Buffett has been a frequent critic of US tax laws and a proponent for a more progressive tax system. At a 2007 fundraiser, he mentioned...

Quote:

"[We] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 percent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 percent.”

Mr. Buffett said that he made $46 million in 2006 and was taxed at 17.7 percent, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 percent. It's troubling statistics such as these that fuel cries of income inequality and the deterioration of democracy. However, a new paper by Greg Mankiw entitled “Spreading the Wealth Around: Reflections on Joe the Plumber” elucidates a completely different perspective, citing the Congressional Budget Office calculations.

Quote:

The poorest fifth of the population, with average annual income of $15,400, pays only 4.5 percent of its income in federal taxes. The middle fifth, with income of $56,200, pays 13.9 percent. And the top fifth, with income of $207,200, pays 25.1 percent. The richest 1 percent, with an average income of $1,259,700, forks over 31.1 percent of its income to the federal government.

Accordingly, he concludes that it is simply inaccurate to argue that we do not have a progressive tax system and that the "best analysis shows that average federal tax rates rise steeply with income.” The truth is the "lower tax rates" mentioned by Buffett and others often excludes corporate taxes, which would boost the rate significantly (remember double-taxation).

Additionally, consider that nearly 50% of all filers pay nothing in federal income taxes. These non-payers are families with children, the elderly, low income households, those who either have too little income to pay taxes or who benefit enough from all the deductions, credits and exemptions in the income tax, so they're zeroed out on the bottom line of their 1040.

This leaves the higher income earners and upper middle class paying the bulk of income taxes. Those who earn over $500,000 per year pay about 24% of all US taxes and earn about 16-17% of all income. Those who earn over $100,000 per year pay about 70% of all US taxes and earn about 56% of all income.

Source Of Income Matters...Much

Just because our tax system is progressive doesn't mean that there aren't tax-avoidance strategies to shelter income.

If the majority of your income is derived from tax-advantaged sources, then your tax burden can be minimized...drastically. For example, it is estimated that Ross Perot took in $230 million in 1995 but only paid 8.5 percent of that income in taxes. Compare this to the person with an earned income over $259,700, who would pay 31.1 percent in taxes. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that this is because Perot "minimizes his tax bill by investing heavily in tax free municipals, tax-sheltered real estate, and stocks with unrealized gains."

A more recent example is Frank McCourt, the owner of the L.A. Dodgers. He received a reported $108 million and paid no federal and state taxes because of loss-carry forwards.

The truth is that one of the reasons the super-affluent get into that position is by being masters at minimizing their realized income.

Before You Join the Fleece the Rich Crowd

Attempts to use the government to strip wealth from the rich have often failed miserably and publicly. Consider Maryland as a cautionary tale.

The WSJ article Millionaires Go Missing: Maryland's fleeced taxpayers fight back details how Maryland failed to balance in budget, so its governor decided that he was going to enact a special millionaire tax to make up the deficit. The projected revenue was supposed to be $106 million. However, after a year, Maryland collected $100 million less than what they collected the previous year. In addition to the incomes of some of Maryland's high-income tax payers going down (in some cases deliberately), other millionaires simply left the state. It turns out that having a very high income affords one both mobility and control over one's realized income (if you own your own business). [b]All told, one-third of millionaires disappeared from Maryland's tax rolls, of which Maryland got 6.25% of nothing. Of course, the same thing happened in New Jersey, yet Oregon still wants to adopt this strategy.

Increased taxes on high income earners can de-incentivize hard work and innovation. It is no fun feeling like you are being punished for getting ahead financially. Additionally, there are plenty of individuals and companies that take tax laws into consideration before deciding on whether to move into a state. Of course, the fatal flaw of a progressive tax code is that it creates an overdependence on the incomes of relatively few. During economic decline, the net worth and incomes of wealthy and rich individuals typically drop more drastically than the general public, so states with more progressive tax systems often suffer severe budgetary deficits.

Lastly, in some parts of the world, you are considered VERY rich. Do you feel like you pay YOUR fair share? While I certainly have nothing but admiration for Mr. Buffett, I think he can always increase his earned income at his company if he wants to pay more in taxes. His checks to the government would certainly be welcomed. However, I don't think that would solve the problem.

Although I know the likelihood of this is very small, but perhaps it is time for a flat tax based on consumption instead of income. This probably would indeed be a "fair tax." What do you think? Are we ready?

And yet, strangely, in the 1950s we had a 90% tax margin for the top-end and it was one of the most productive eras in American history.

I'd be all for a crafted no-loophole, no-exclusion no-exemption progressive tax structure. The corporations and the "top 400" might have to actually help support the communities they make use of. Either that or try their luck in a country more likely to nationalize them (or put them up against the wall).

I'm always horribly, horribly amused whenever taxing the rich at higher rates is called "fleecing" them or some other nonsense like that. As if they haven't royally screwed over everyone else at every chance they've gotten. Expropriate from them all, I say.

And yet, strangely, in the 1950s we had a 90% tax margin for the top-end and it was one of the most productive eras in American history.

I'd be all for a crafted no-loophole, no-exclusion no-exemption progressive tax structure. The corporations and the "top 400" might have to actually help support the communities they make use of. Either that or try their luck in a country more likely to nationalize them (or put them up against the wall).

Therefore, it is errorneous to compare the tax rates of the pre-1971 era (when we still were on a facimile of the gold standard) with the total fiat money system we now are under.

There is a path to prosperity, but it requires undoing the failed policies of the past 98 years, starting with the Federal Reserve Act and an overhaul of the Revenue Act of 1913.

However, no one--not the Republicans, not the Dems, and probably not even the Teaparty--are willing to do what has to be done as far as I can tell.
When congress starts repealing laws and overhauling Title 26 back to a flat rate tax on income like it was in the late 1800s (1861 to be exact), then we'll see the big corporations actually start paying their "fair share" of taxes.
Progressive tax rates are designed so that corporations pay less taxes (as Robert Kiyosaki points out in this book), while the rest of us are burdened.
A flat tax is simple, and difficult to circumvent because of its simplicity.
Consider how few businesses can skirt past their state sales taxes without getting caught compared to how many major corporations don't pay taxes period.

A national sales tax or flat tax will make the rich poorer and the poor richer, however, it will be useless without reversing the outsourcing of jobs, massive government spending, and the influx of cheap slave labor.
If these things are changed, we'll see a return of jobs, and an increase in the buying power of the dollar.
Until then, the rich will get richer, the middle class will continue to evaporate, and the poor will slip further into economic slavery.
Raising taxes will only accelerate the process.